High Level Fighter Vs. High Level Barbarian

[Crothian]

There is a valid argument that the default NPCs are kind of wimpy. But I agree that the default fighter is equally wimpy to the default barbarian.

That they are wimpy doesn't matter, all that matters are they were created by the exact same rules and balanced by the writers of the game. Creating a fighter specifically to defeat a Barbarian to fight a barbarian that was created specifically to defeat a fighter is ludicrious. It only proves that one can be built to defeat the other better, not that one is better then the other.

Also, they shouldn't be fighting each other. They should be fighting encounters are various difficulty that are exactly the same. And then based on how each does against the encounter, cvan we judge who is better.

 

[Epametheus]

Also, the lower-level the battle occurs, the more likely it'll be in the fighter's favor. The last few barbarian abilities are brutal.

The melee edge that a L20 Barbarian can acquire is much better than what a L12 Barbarian could pull off. An archer could put a bunch of holes in a low level barbarian, but is going to run afoul his damage reduction if it's a very high-level one.

With the new weapon spec feats, fighters cap off at around L12 instead of L8.

Looking at the NPCs in my 3.0 DMG, whoever the heck wrote the barbarian actually screwed up the numbers, and I'm not in the mood to fix their math for them.

 

[Trainz]

With the new weapon spec feats, fighters cap off at around L12 instead of L8.

With the advent of CW, fighters never cap off. a 16th level fighter with two short weapons is something to behold.

 

[Endur]

CW gives enough archer feats to allow an archer to go all the way up to level 20 as well.

With the advent of CW, fighters never cap off. a 16th level fighter with two short weapons is something to behold.

 

[Trainz]

CW gives enough archer feats to allow an archer to go all the way up to level 20 as well.

Yup, that too.

At 20th, the Barbarian has, what, DR 5, and his mighty rage grants +4 to hit, +4 damage (or +6), and +80 hit points (the only real advantage), with 4 attacks.

My two light weapons fighter: 8 attacks, and if he takes two weapon defense 3 times (and he will), and fighting defensively (we can assume he has at least 5 ranks in tumble by level 20), that's -4 to hit, but that gives him (with two weapon defense) a +9 to AC. Plus nine ! His penalty with two weapon defense and fight defensively is a net -6, but that's somewhat offset by greater weapon focus (+2). The barb has +4 damage while raging, the fighter has +4 damage always from specialization (once we reach epic levels, epic weapon focus goes to +4 and specialization to +8 !)

Now, the fighter can greater combat expertise at full BAB (he also has that feat, remember, he's a fighter, he has all the feats he wants) so that the barb needs a 20 to hit him with his 4 attacks, but the fighter still has 8 attacks, which also need 20 to hit. Eventually the barb's rage is over, and the fighter switch from defensive to offensive (while still fighting defensively), and finishes the barb.

This fighter is not built to destroy a barb per se, my player in a game I DM has this exact build. It works against most critters.

So, yeah. I didn't analyse the fighter-archer, might be as nasty, but I don't think the barb stands a chance.

 

[Trainz]

It's important to note that the role of the barb is NOT to be the best in melee: he's designed to be quite good in melee, and also have other tricks: many skills, superior in short bursts (except against my optimized fighter), and general survivalist (trap sense, indomitable will, uncanny dodge).

The barb is quite a good class to play. But the best at fighting is... the fighter.

 

[Epametheus]

If the fighter is taking -15 or whatever off his BAB to add to AC, wouldn't it be stupifyingly easy for the barbarian to simply shatter his weapons? Sunder and Disarm are opposed attack rolls, not an attack against an AC.

 

[Trainz]

If the fighter is taking -15 or whatever off his BAB to add to AC, wouldn't it be stupifyingly easy for the barbarian to simply shatter his weapons? Sunder and Disarm are opposed attack rolls, not an attack against an AC.

Then the fighter just fights defensively as in my example, and still comes on top.

But for arguments sake, lets say the fighter is indeed taking -15, but how would the Barb know that the fighter did this ? For all intents and purposes, the fighter simply missed. There is no indication that he substracted 15 from his BaB. That would be metagaming on the part of the DM, and if the player was the barb, he simply wouldn't be aware of it.

There are even more variables then your example suggests, but I still beleive as a whole that the fighter is the better... fighter.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

That rather depends upon whether the barbarian is designed to sunder or disarm. Improved Disarm requires combat expertise--which many barbarians will avoid since it can't be used while raging--which requires a 13 int--something most barbarians don't have. Improved Sunder requires only power attack so it's more likely. However, it's hardly a done deal and every round spend trying to sunder the fighter's weapon is a round spent not damaging the fighter. The barbarian can only afford to spend a few rounds not damaging the fighter or his rage is likely to run out on him.

BTW, for a melee fighter vs barbarian, I'd suggest a magical adamantine tower shield and an adamantine bastard sword. The fighter could use the normal Combat Expertise for five points (+5 mithral fullplate for +13 armor, 16 modified dex for +3 dex, +5 ring of protection for +5 deflection, +5 amulet of natural armor for +5 natural armor, Boots of Speed for +1 haste, Dodge for +1 dodge, +5 adamantine tower shield for +9 shield, and to 5 points of combat expertise yield an AC between 47 and 52--slap fortification on the armor to avoid a barbarian victory through a lucky crit). With a hardness of 30, and quite a few hit points, the shield and armor should be pretty resilient vs. sunders; with a locked gauntlet, the fighter is pretty well set vs. disarms, and with only 5 points of expertise, he's not that far behind the barbarian in terms of attack bonus anyway.

An alternate anti barbarian fighter might have improved unarmed strike, improved grapple, and weapon focus and greater weapon focus and specialization: grapple and armor spikes. I'm not certain that he could push his grapple check high enough to reliably beat the barbarian but he'd stand a very good chance of neutralizing the barbarian's offensive power for the duration of the barbarian's rage. And after that, the barbarian would be toast.

If the fighter is taking -15 or whatever off his BAB to add to AC, wouldn't it be stupifyingly easy for the barbarian to simply shatter his weapons? Sunder and Disarm are opposed attack rolls, not an attack against an AC.

 

[Darklone]

I wouldn't use Improved Expertise as a fighter... Expertise usually is enough to make the barbarian nearly only hit on 20s. And due to the much lower AC of the barbarian, the fighter would still hit nicely. Hitpoint advantage of the barbarian and DR might help, but IMHO it's not enough to make up for the simple to hit vs AC advantage of the fighter.